I zoomed in on certain parts of the movies and I think it's pretty clear when you see this ( marked parts where I see it very clearly ):

All the comparison video's on gametrailers show almost the same thing. Yes, the brightness/contrast is different every time but that's not what I am talking about. Brightness/Contrast is different on every screen ever made on the planet, so the difference in the consoles doesn't mather one bit.

I am talking about PS3 being more blurry then the 360. The most logical explenation I can think off is that Sony did to hide distortion artifacts better. It's a fact that sharpness exposes distortion artifacts much better, so I think Sony made it slightly more blurry on purpose.

But then again, sharpness is also a setting that you can find on practicly every HD-Read and Full-HD TV, so I guess it doesn't really mather.

Just want to know, Sony/Microsoft fanboy or not, can you confirm what I see? Or are my eyes misleading me?

This is misleading. My picture on my standard def 25 inch TV is not nearly as blurry as those pictures make out. I have seen it running on both systems (my best friend has a 360) and both look great. Comparisons between consoles is useless IMO just as that silly image quality debate with ATI and Nvidia. It's all just pointless. I have yet to see a game that as bad in real life as these comparisons make them out to be sometimes.

It's more blurry because the PS3 version runs it with a lower res, 720P I think whereas the 360 runs it at (I think) 960P
The 360 also uses AA I think.

Click to expand...

Both consoles have AA enabled by default. Both consoles seem to have the same AA level, and I really doubt that gametrailers would record a video with both consoles on different resolutions. The difference isn't that big, it really has nothing to do with AA OR AF.

This is misleading. My picture on my standard def 25 inch TV is not nearly as blurry as those pictures make out. I have seen it running on both systems (my best friend has a 360) and both look great. Comparisons between consoles is useless IMO just as that silly image quality debate with ATI and Nvidia. It's all just pointless. I have yet to see a game that as bad in real life as these comparisons make them out to be sometimes.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with what you are saying, really I do. Not trying to concinve anyone that the Xbox is better. Both consoles have their advantages and disadvantages. What I don't understand is that Sony's consoles is more powerfull but seems to be slightly, very slightly, mor blurry then the 360.

@Jelle Mees: I don't know much at all about how to code, but I have always heard that it is hard to code for the Cell. I think that developers are just not optimizing the games or even coding them right sometimes. I'd say Rainbow 6: Vegas, Assasins Creed, and GTA 4 are good examples of that. I heard Mirrors Edge will acutally be optimized for the PS3 and 360, so hopefully that game will perform properly.

Hard to say really... comparing static screenshots is kinda pointless. It's no Crysis, but it looks great when moving. Just take the helicoper tour at night or a taxi ride through Star Junction and you'll agree.

You could say the 360 version is "sharper" or you could say it is "jaggy"
You could say the PS3 version is "blurry" or you could say it is "smoother"

It's personal preference but I doubt you would even notice at normal playing distance on a normal TV when the game is in full motion with moving, shooting, driving etc.

Ok i own the 360 ver,my brother has ps3 ver, i have compared them myself

Both compared on 42inch panasonic lcd tv with hdmi for both console's

The 360 ver looks alot better, no doubt about it,the colors are more clear and brighter,ps3 is very blury and uses alot more AA to a point it looks like rubbish

Also the controller on the ps3 is a joke, basically the same as the ps1,the new analog triggers are as lame as the analog sticks... also xbox live owns the playstation network, you cant even chat ingame on ps3 and there alot more people on 360 + achievements if your into that

All these 12 year old sony fanboys have know clue, sure the "cell" maybe better cpu then 360,but the gfx card sure of hell isnt, and at the end of the day CPU power doesnt mean shit,a better gpu is going to come out on top

Also my brothers ps3 had to be replaced in the first 2 weeks of ownership as the disk drive couldnt read anything not even a cd...

All these 12 year old sony fanboys have know clue, sure the "cell" maybe better cpu then 360,but the gfx card sure of hell isnt, and at the end of the day CPU power doesnt mean shit,a better gpu is going to come out on top

Click to expand...

I'd like to know where you get that assumption from because it's just pure wrong. Xenos (the 360's GPU) is clocked at 500mhz, and runs 4000MP/s 1500 Vertexes and and 8000 Texture. The Reality Synthesizer (PS3's GPU) Does 4400 MP/s 1100 Vertexes and 13200 Texture.

I'd like to know where you get that assumption from because it's just pure wrong. Xenos (the 360's GPU) is clocked at 500mhz, and runs 4000MP/s 1500 Vertexes and and 8000 Texture. The Reality Synthesizer (PS3's GPU) Does 4400 MP/s 1100 Vertexes and 13200 Texture.